On 12-03-28 11:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 05:21:59PM +0200, Igor Grinberg wrote:
>> On 03/09/12 00:06, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>
>>> +REGULATOR_CONSUMER(ldo3, "reg-userspace-consumer", "vcc gps");
>
>> If you make this:
>> REGULATOR_CONSUMER(ldo3, NULL, "vcc gps");
>
>>> +REGULATOR_CONSUMER(ldo19, "reg-userspace-consumer", "vcc gprs");
>>
>> and this:
>> REGULATOR_CONSUMER(ldo19, NULL, "vcc gprs");
>
> These don't look like good fixes, you should be specifying the
> dev_name() for the consumer device? Presumably it's two separate
> consumers and should be .0 and .1 or something?
Here is what I meant when I said in my v2 comment that there was
naming overlap, and that I wasn't sure what impact that had.
The two consumers are:
static struct platform_device em_x270_gps_userspace_consumer = {
.name = "reg-userspace-consumer",
.id = 0,
.dev = {
.platform_data = &em_x270_gps_consumer_data,
},
};
and
static struct platform_device em_x270_gprs_userspace_consumer = {
.name = "reg-userspace-consumer",
.id = 1,
.dev = {
.platform_data = &em_x270_gprs_consumer_data,
}
};
Note that the existing names currently don't incorporate the .id
field as a suffix, and so never were unique.
Paul.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
